Fidel Castro vs. Fulgencio Batista (1 Viewer)

[Dans La Lune]

Which side would you have picked: Fidel Castro or Fulgencio Batista?

Bonus question: Was Cuba better before or after the revolution?

This is not a pro-socialist trick question. I'm genuinely curious about people's perceptions. We often hear about how bad Castro was, which in many cases is a deserved reputation. However, what Castro replaced tends to be unspoken by Castro's detractors.

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cuban Revolution | Summary, Facts, Causes, Effects, & Significance | Britannica

The Cuban Revolution was an armed revolt that led to the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista’s government and the start of Fidel Castro’s regime on January 1, 1959.

www.britannica.com

 

[TheParser]

Batista, of course.

He was just a dictator.

But the people were relatively free.

Castro was a tyrant.

It was his way or the highway (AKA prison).

Liberals should really dislike Castro, for one of the first things he did was to round up gay men and throw them into concentration camps.

 

[Tigerace117]

Which side would you have picked: Fidel Castro or Fulgencio Batista?

Bonus question: Was Cuba better before or after the revolution?

This is not a pro-socialist trick question. I'm genuinely curious about people's perceptions. We often hear about how bad Castro was, which in many cases is a deserved reputation. However, what Castro replaced tends to be unspoken by Castro's detractors.

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cuban Revolution | Summary, Facts, Causes, Effects, & Significance | Britannica

The Cuban Revolution was an armed revolt that led to the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista’s government and the start of Fidel Castro’s regime on January 1, 1959.

www.britannica.com

Cuba was immensely better off after Batista and the mob got chased out in almost every way.

Which is further demonstrated by how spectacularly the Bay of Pigs failed.

 

[Tigerace117]

Batista, of course.

He was just a dictator.

But the people were relatively free.

Castro was a tyrant.

It was his way or the highway (AKA prison).

Liberals should really dislike Castro, for one of the first things he did was to round up gay men and throw them into concentration camps.

I hate to break it to you, but no, people weren’t “relatively free” under Batista. Americans loved him, because he basically ran the place as a tropical vacation paradise for us(and pay no attention to the mass suffering of the locals) but the Cuban people did not share our cheery views of him.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Neither of them were ever good for much.

Batista and Castro were murdering tyrants.

 

[Surrealistik]

Which side would you have picked: Fidel Castro or Fulgencio Batista?

Bonus question: Was Cuba better before or after the revolution?

This is not a pro-socialist trick question. I'm genuinely curious about people's perceptions. We often hear about how bad Castro was, which in many cases is a deserved reputation. However, what Castro replaced tends to be unspoken by Castro's detractors.

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cuban Revolution | Summary, Facts, Causes, Effects, & Significance | Britannica

The Cuban Revolution was an armed revolt that led to the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista’s government and the start of Fidel Castro’s regime on January 1, 1959.

www.britannica.com

It's akin to choosing between puke soup or a shit sandwich.

 

[aociswundumho]

It's akin to choosing between puke soup or a shit sandwich.

True, but there was far more economic freedom before Castro. This is the same street in Havana, before Castro and after Castro:

 

[Surrealistik]

True, but there was far more economic freedom before Castro. This is the same street in Havana, before Castro and after Castro:

View attachment 67426126

Doesn't matter all that much when the economy is run by foreigners for the overwhelming benefit of foreigners, and in particular the American mafia, at the expense of Cubans, with Bautista's administration being so resolutely corrupt and awful that it gave rise to Castro and his communists with overwhelming support and fanfare from the Cuban people. It is important to remember that could be no revolution without Fulgencio.

 

[aociswundumho]

Doesn't matter all that much when the economy is run by foreigners for the overwhelming benefit of foreigners, and in particular the American mafia, at the expense of Cubans, with Bautista's administration being so resolutely corrupt and awful that it gave rise to Castro and his communists with overwhelming support and fanfare from the Cuban people. It is important to remember that could be no revolution without Fulgencio.

Whatever. The fact is, Castro's "revolution" made the Cuban people much worse off.

 

[Surrealistik]

Whatever. The fact is, Castro's "revolution" made the Cuban people much worse off.

It's not quite so clear cut; I'm sure plenty of them would disagree (as the overwhelming majority most certainly did at the time of the revolution). Also, much of the dearth presently experienced by Cuba is directly attributable to the US embargos levied against the country.

 

[aociswundumho]

It's not quite so clear cut; I'm sure plenty of them would disagree (as the overwhelming majority most certainly did at the time of the revolution).

Based on what? Certainly not the facts:

When Fidel Castro led his revolutionary army into Havana in January of 1959, he ushered in a new era in Cuban life. He also launched a new era of mass emigration from his country to the United States. In the decades that followed, more than one million Cubans would make their way to the U.S., and thousands more would try and fail.

Also, much of the dearth presently experienced by Cuba is directly attributable to the US embargos levied against the country.

Lol, Cuba had and has the entire rest of the world to trade with.

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub

In order to trade, you have to first produce, and socialist countries like Cuba don't produce shit.

It's hilarious that someone like you would argue that a socialist paradise desperately needs the evil capitalist USA in order to prosper.

 

[Surrealistik]

Based on what? Certainly not the facts:

I'm not sure how 1 millions Cubans emigrating from a country over a decade with a population roughly seven fold that at the time of the revolution supports your assertion that the revolution did not have overwhelming support.

Lol, Cuba had and has the entire rest of the world to trade with.

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub

In order to trade, you have to first produce, and socialist countries like Cuba don't produce shit.

It's hilarious that someone like you would argue that a socialist paradise desperately needs the evil capitalist USA in order to prosper.

It's not ironic at all, given that the US is both the world's largest economy and on Cuba's doorstep; as a matter of economic fact and geography, a total embargo from such a crucial and proximal trading partner is going to factually have a massive adverse impact, particularly when there is clear US demand for Cuban goods and services in terms of medical and conventional tourism, alcohol, tobacco products and coffee, nevermind the run on effects of foreign investment in general that would unambiguously expand that product base:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-economy-un-idUSKBN1IA00T.

If the US embargoed Canada as it did Cuba we'd probably envy Cuba's present standard of living despite our ability to engage with the rest of the world.

 

[aociswundumho]

I'm not sure how 1 millions Cubans emigrating from a country with a population roughly seven times that at the time supports your implicit assertion that the revolution did not have overwhelming support.

Lol, ok, what's your evidence of this "overwhelming support".

It's not ironic at all, given that the US is both the world's largest economy and on Cuba's doorstep; as a matter of economic fact and geography, a total embargo from such a crucial and proximal trading partner is going to factually have a massive adverse impact, particularly when there is clear US demand for Cuban goods and services in terms of medical and conventional tourism, alcohol, tobacco products and coffee, nevermind the run on effects of foreign investment in general that would unambiguously expand that product base

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-economy-un-idUSKBN1IA00T.

If the US embargoed Canada we'd probably envy Cuba's present standard of living despite our ability to engage with the rest of the world.

So socialism needs capitalism in order to work.

You're not signalling much virtue here.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Which side would you have picked: Fidel Castro or Fulgencio Batista?

Bonus question: Was Cuba better before or after the revolution?

This is not a pro-socialist trick question. I'm genuinely curious about people's perceptions. We often hear about how bad Castro was, which in many cases is a deserved reputation. However, what Castro replaced tends to be unspoken by Castro's detractors.

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cuban Revolution | Summary, Facts, Causes, Effects, & Significance | Britannica

The Cuban Revolution was an armed revolt that led to the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista’s government and the start of Fidel Castro’s regime on January 1, 1959.

www.britannica.com

I have winter vacationed in Cuba (legal for Canadians) three times.

What first struck me was how clean it was. Compared to nearby Haiti etc. it is an oasis. The second thing is the cars...not a rust bucket to be found, the newest would be a '62 model, and all of them in mint.

There is some political debate, but I could not say there was total freedom of speech. No one hates America and like everywhere I have traveled Russians are despised.

The real issue is and has been the division of families, sometimes by design and sometimes by force. But if there do not indulge in politics. Like all of the Caribbean, the people take to music and dance for entertainment, and prefer that to film etc. No one 'hates' America, but Americans are suspect.

 

[Surrealistik]

Lol, ok, what's your evidence of this "overwhelming support".

A: That the revolution was wildly successful complete with large scale insurrections that would not have been possible without such support.

B: The well documented fact that Cubans had indeed greatly supported the revolution per most academic accounts:

The Castro Touch | Modern Latin America

library.brown.edu

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/WSN-87-2017-60-76-2.pdf

So socialism needs capitalism in order to work.

You're not signalling much virtue here.

I wasn't aware that I was signaling virtue so much as proving a point.

 

[Tigerace117]

Whatever. The fact is, Castro's "revolution" made the Cuban people much worse off.

Nope. Castro’s revolution put an end to Cuba being run as nothing more than an American playground, with the people economically exploited on a massively level.

 

[justabubba]

Whatever. The fact is, Castro's "revolution" made the Cuban people much worse off.

not in all ways
i believe the people have a much better health index than before
and much of the blight that has been experienced is directly the result of the prolonged economic embargo maintained by the USA

 

[Oozlefinch]

Which side would you have picked: Fidel Castro or Fulgencio Batista?

Bonus question: Was Cuba better before or after the revolution?

Well, here is one simple answer.

Could they freely leave under Batista?

Can they freely leave now?

Like when the Iron Curtain was in place, the problem with leaving the country was less finding a country to take you, but getting permission to leave in the first place. And although they claim "free emigration" is the right of any Cuban citizen, the reality is only those that have a state issued passport can do so. And that is something they tightly control and very few have or can even get. Which is why most are illegal, using techniques that kill many each yet.

If a country is essentially a giant prison that few are allowed to leave legally, that tells me it is far worse today than before the revolution. In general, from 150,000 to 180,000 risk their lives each year trying to leave that country. And the trend has only been increasing in the last decade.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Whatever. The fact is, Castro's "revolution" made the Cuban people much worse off.

I thought this was an extremely balanced view of Fidel Castro, warts and all.

In terms of education, literacy, healthcare, infant mortality -- the Cuban people are enormously better off.

And Castro relaxed a lot of the early restrictions on the artistic / creative aspects of the economy. Overall, in terms of dictators, he was relatively benign and seemed to want to work with the West, when they weren't trying to assassinate him and sanction him. It was largely American efforts that drove him towards the Soviet Union, for example. He was an enemy of apartheid and a staunch ally/friend of Nelson Mandela. And in the latter years of his life, he remained mostly neutral on Russia.

For my vote, I would choose Castro over Batista -- who, from all accounts, a mafia-aligned dictator who allowed American corporate interests to skull-**** the resources of Cuba. This is what lead to Fidel becoming hostile to American interests. America extracted wealth, the Cuban people (not aligned with American interests) were exploited.

What could have become of America's relationship with Castro if they didn't immediately try to assassinate and launch coups? We'll never know.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Well, here is one simple answer.

Could they freely leave under Batista?

Nope, but if it depends if you were an elite or not.

 

[Oozlefinch]

In terms of education, literacy, healthcare, infant mortality -- the Cuban people are enormously better off.

Are they?

In 1959, Cuban infant mortality was 67.646 per 100k. In the US it was 26.772 per 100k. Globally, it was 126.246. SO it was about half of that globally even at that time.

Today? It is 4.18 per 100k. In the US it is 5.54k per 100k. And globally, 26.69 per 100k.

In other words, it has decreased by about the same amount as it has globally. Therefore, the only assumption is that it would have decreased no matter who was in charge. Therefore, the government did little to nothing in reality. You are trying to give them credit for a global trend.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Are they?

In 1959, Cuban infant mortality was 67.646 per 100k. In the US it was 26.772 per 100k. Globally, it was 126.246. SO it was about half of that globally even at that time.

Today? It is 4.18 per 100k. In the US it is 5.54k per 100k. And globally, 26.69 per 100k.

In other words, it has decreased by about the same amount as it has globally. Therefore, the only assumption is that it would have decreased no matter who was in charge. Therefore, the government did little to nothing in reality. You are trying to give them credit for a global trend.

And why is there a global trend, and why does Cuba beat America in this area [infant mortality rates]? Just asking.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Nope, but if it depends if you were an elite or not.

I love how you started out claiming it was not a "pro-socialist trick question", then you pretty much deny anything that proves your claims are false.

But the question for any of these countries are all the same. It can be the historical USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, or any other "Socialist Country". How many people die or risk their lives to leave such a country? Why are they all essentially prison countries, that forbid anybody not chosen by them to leave, and so many risk their life and the lives of their families to try and leave them?

If "Socialist Cuba" (or any other country under such a government) is so absolutely amazing, why are so many risking their lives to get away from it? And even more interestingly, how many are trying to go to those countries?

You can try to spin the propaganda any way you want, but you can not dent those simple facts. If anybody wants to leave the US, UK, Spain, Netherlands, or any other major country they want, they just leave. Their government is not holing them prisoner. In fact, far more people move to those countries than leave them.

About the only people I can think of that risked their lives going to Cuba were criminal hijackers a few decades ago. But since then millions have risked their lives trying to flee it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

How Fidel beat Batista:

"[Batista's government] is a government of thieves. To have this small guerrilla band in the mountains is to his advantage so that he can order special Defense expenditures that he can steal."

"By the time Batista sent a significant force of ten thousand soldiers, Castro had become too strong, and the regular army too corrupt to be effective."

 

[Fearandloathing]

And why is there a global trend, and why does Cuba beat America in this area [infant mortality rates]? Just asking.

Probably because they have easy access to medical care. Cuba is among the poorest of Caribbean countries but has built an elaborate infrastructure where the medical workers come to the patient. Easier to do since 90% of the population lives on the north coast. Longevity rates are subject to infant mortality rates.

Although Americans hate hearing this the country is very clean and orderly. Prostitution is supposedly illegal so there are no open hustlers and street hawking etc. is frowned upon in nicer neighborhoods.

The people are far more community minded, as per usual in the Caribbean, and respectful of each other.

Having been there I do not understand why Americans fear them.